March 4, 2025 - 4:20pm
Ever since Labour MP Kim Leadbeater introduced her private members’ bill to legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales last November, many have characterised her plans as providing for the creation of a National Death Service. This could be interpreted either as a tongue-in-cheek indictment of the National Health Service’s lamentable state, or a more sincere attempt to grapple with the moral implications of a government helping its citizens commit suicide.
Now it seems that we may not even get that. As the Times has reported, ministers are thinking about allowing the NHS to outsource assisted dying to private clinics, such is the expected uptake for state-sanctioned suicide. Among the plans considered is a scheme similar to NHS dentistry, where clinics offer “services” to both private patients and NHS patients — the only difference being that dentistry, although it sometimes feels like it, is not intended to kill you.
It was also pointed out, quite accurately, that there is nothing in Leadbeater’s bill prohibiting the private provision of assisted suicide, raising the cheerful prospect of dying in, say, a Bupa clinic.
All of this naturally provokes all sorts of interesting questions. For instance, would payment for assisted suicide be made beforehand, or could families receive a bill in the post right after learning what their loved ones have done? (There is no provision in the bill for the family to be informed before the procedure.)
On the level of policy, would it have been better had the bill been preceded by some sort of impact assessment, so that ministers don’t have to scramble to try to figure out how an overstretched NHS, which cannot even deliver actual care in many cases, is supposed to end the lives of potentially thousands of patients each year? In fairness, Health Secretary Wes Streeting did commission something of the kind, which made Labour’s grande dame Harriet Harman apoplectic — it would be bad form to figure out that assisted suicide is unworkable before Parliament voted it through.
Of course, private provision of assisted suicide and euthanasia is not unknown in other countries. In Canada, there are doctors whose main source of income comes from killing their patients; they bill the provincial government according to a fees schedule. While most Canadian doctors recoil at becoming involved in these activities, a very small minority happily specialise in it. One, Dr Ellen Wiebe, claims she has been involved in the deaths of more than 400 patients, which she describes as “very rewarding”.
Not unrelatedly, some have been accused of cutting corners, such as approving requests to die after a single telephone call — time is money, after all. Dr Wiebe herself is currently the subject of two civil lawsuits: one alleging wrongful death for a man who did not qualify for euthanasia under Canadian law, the other claiming that Wiebe “negligently approved the procedure for a patient who does not legally qualify” after one Zoom meeting.
But English doctors can rest assured. Clause 26 of the Leadbeater bill provides for a complete indemnity from civil claims for anyone involved in the assisted dying process. This means that a doctor cannot be sued, for example, for negligently assessing someone’s life expectancy, or for negligently assessing that someone has capacity to consent to assisted suicide. Indeed, if the doctor got the dosage of the drugs wrong and botched the procedure, they would be immune from civil suits as well.
Leadbeater’s camp has briefed that she intends to amend her own bill to cap profits on assisted suicide at a “reasonable” rate. One cannot put a price on life. Soon, at least, we will know the price of ending one.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAnd will be stopped.
What bunch of nonsense this article is, over 50% of the military budget is salaries and benefits, unless Trump intends to fire tens of thousands of military personnel and eliminate their benefits there will be no cuts. Another 25% of the budget is maintaining the military bases in the country and around the world, does he really plan on closing many of those bases and letting go thousands in personnel and contractors that support them. Musk knows nothing about building planes and weapons, he ban barely build a decent electric car that most people want to buy and space x is a joke, so what if they built a useless rocket to go into orbit. Musk is a farce, military equipment like fighter planes and advanced missiles are at a whole other level, may beyond the Musk cult. And are they really going to cut procurement needed to replace aging and depleting equipment, and risk falling behind China and other countries in r and d. That is the other 25% of the budget. These people are a farce and their supporters need to get a grip and stop living in their alternate universe. Prediction: the military budget will increase to a trillion $ in 4 years.
Space X is no joke. It’s an amazing achievement, as are Tesla and his other enterprises. But, respecting his comments on the F35, I suspect that he is more focused on the procurement processes and a stripped-down number of suppliers that have little threat of competition. I agree that rocket science is less demanding than fighter plane and anti-missile science. Your numbers on where the defense budget goes are compelling.
In his latest comments, he said that he would sit down with the Russians and the Chinese and make the case that they should all be spending less of their economic output on their militaries. Yeah, because we can trust the Russians and the Chinese. They seem like decent chaps after all….
Because you can trust western governments? (Not One Inch)
There is so much potential for radical change. When I think of all that Trump is doing and proposing, it feels like I’ve won the lottery. It’s breathtaking. I hope SCOTUS clears the path.
It really puts in stark relief all the self-serving leaders who have gone before. If they had even done a fraction of what Trump is attempting, we would be much better off.
What he is attempting is to ensure that the US loses the forthcoming war with China. Not sure how that’s a good thing though.
I just read somewhere else that F35 cost $2 trillion more than budget not just $2T total. Wonder which it was.
He won’t “take on” the Military Industrial Complex, he’ll merely transfer its contracts over to Musk & Co.
It’s amazing how Musks political convictions swung to Biden when he was in charge then pivoted 180 to Trump when it looked like he’d be getting the keys to the White House
Seriously? Musk became enemy number one in the Biden administration the day he bought twitter and relaxed the censorship rules. He suffered from as much lawfare as Trump. If Musk was only interested in enriching himself, he would have donated millions and stayed in the shadows. He has put a target on his back by being so public and active.
This is correct. A very important part of the Musk psychology is that he doesn’t like being picked on (as he was when he was young). He doesn’t seem to forget those who have done so.
Musk does not crave money. He’s got more than anyone. He craves the freedom not to be told what he can and cannot do, as well as admiration, though not necessarily acceptance.
Correct. He is the same creepy little kid that got the hell beaten out of him at school. His problem is that he still has the same personality defects that caused it to happen.
Really? Well, hopefully someone, somewhere is a halfway decent shot (speaking figuratively, of course).
The UK has a benefits-industrial complex. There’s no more capacious mammary gland than long-term sickness disability benefit.
The growling Lord Dannatt may urge Starmer to increase defence spending, but to judge from Ukraine’s experience, the main components required are drones and mines. And of course, in the UK’s case, an humanitarian flotilla to ‘rescue’ migrants from the French Channel.
Is there a way to downvote articles?
Definitely not Dennis you always press the green up button to support.
All the best Tony
Still early days, but he might turn out to be the first anti-MIC president since Kennedy. Apropos of that, do we know any more about the young chap who shot Trump’s ear?
Under JFK, military expenditures exploded, and not only for his entry into the Vietnam mess. Eisenhower kept costs down a bit by relying upon the nuclear threat. Military spending as a percentage of GDP was much higher than today. In the shadow of WWII and Korea, the public grasped the threat of the USSR. In any event, Trump’s statement needs to be taken along with him calling for an Iron Dome for the US. Billions have already been spent since Reagan proposed what opponents named “Star Wars”, which has led to current capacities. Better won’t be cheap.
We know what happened to JFK.
Is he really “taking on” the military-industrial complex, or the educated-progressive Marxian elite?
Are the congressmen advocating that parts of the F-35 be made in their districts Marxists? That’s a curiously broad brush.
“Marxian”?
Odd comment about Starmer being in a driverless train.
Quite the opposite. He is relishing what he is doing.
Hiding the Labour-Muslim-vote corruption. (Not reported on Unherd)
Preventing a national Pakistani rape-gang inquiry. (Silence from the shameful Unherd Feminists)
Defending the cv-lying Reeves while she crashes the economy. (Ignored by Unherd)
Imprisoning Facebook posters. (Ignored by Unherd)
Prioritising international law over British interests. (The Chagos scandal. All Starmer’s lawyer friends involved. The Starmer-Hermer-Sands team. All ignored by Unherd.)
He is fully in control.
Perhaps the author meant a runaway train? There are no brakes, the engine cannot be stopped, the sharp curve approaches.
Perhaps. But to me Starmer is in full control of his party. And this is the strange one, given a free pass by the media.
He doesn’t get a free pass on UnHerd though.